click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
with the palestinians, with europeans, and maybe with the obama administration. >> maybe not extreme when it comes -- when you put it in that context and framework. it's extreme when you come to any consent with a two-state solution. israel saying it has to protect its strategic interests. what are they when it comes to e-1, the area that's going to cut the west bank in half, from north to south, effectively? >> i don't think it's a matter of strategy. certainly not when it comes to security. it's a matter of ideology and politics. e-1 under consideration sense rabin, who basically expanded but agreed informally with the americans there would be no building in e-1 and whatever building was done would be in agreement with what at the time credible, viable palestinian partner. e-1 has sat, little has gone on there. they've done some infrastructure planning and road construction. again, michael, i don't think benjamin nettanyahu will go through with e-1. he'll increase the number of units in east jerusalem which to the southeast will make it more difficult to create any measure of continuity if negot
can. the obama administration says, agrees that law is unconstitutional. that law is now being defended by a lawyer hired by the republicans in the house of representatives. so that -- that is one case. the other case is the proposition 8 case in california. if you recall, california -- there was a referendum -- the california supreme court ruled that there had to be same sex marriage under the california constitution. gay people had the right to get married there for a brief period of time. then there was an initiative put on the ballot, proposition 8, california voted in a close election to overturn same sex marriage. same sex marriage was banned after it was briefly legal. the federal district court had a trial there, and said that law, proposition 8, banning same sex marriage, is unconstitutional. that was affirmed on appeal, that is now appealed to the supreme court and they will now decide whether proposition 8 is constitutional or not. >> when we talk about this as being a historical sort of review, clearly there were different laws passed at the state level. so now it i
and discrimination against gay people. obama administration says it agrees that the law is unconstitutional so the house of representatives has hired outside lawyers to represent the law. >> because justice department has said you know what, this is ugly and we don't like it. it is here. but we are not going to enforce it. if this goes to the supreme court, who argues on behalf of the government? if the government does want to discuss it who discusses it for the government? >> paul clement, very distinguished lawyer hired by the house of representatives. former solicitor general under george w. bush. he argued the health care case and argued the arizona immigration case. she a very experienced advocate. that position will be very well represented. >> strangely we wouldn't have the current solicitor general. >> it happens, you know, about once every ten years. when the department of justice says we cannot represent the government. we just think that this is beyond the pale. that's what he is there done here. >> let me flip to prop 8. just so everyone is clear what jeffrey was talking about with
, and let the states do what it will. >> and just why would the obama administration balk at enforcing laws that were on the books for decades. >> there is the legal issue. >> here you have states for president obama, colorado in fact is a swing state. the states have spoken, and for the federal government to come in and say we want to quash the popular mandate, there are political risks to do that. >> and there is also some precedents for medical marijuana which is already legal in 18 states and the district of columbia. >> but don't think that medical marijuana is exempt from scrutiny, the feds can go after that, too, one spokesperson said. president obama said we won't be legalizing weed any time soon. >>> the attacks stunned the u.s. but now we may get more information on the attack on benghazi and the arrest of a suspect. we'll have a report in just a few moments. many of my patients still clean their dentures with toothpaste. but they have to use special care in keeping the denture clean. dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface por
pleasure. >> get on there, get on witnesser and chat. >>> we are getting reaction from the obama administration now which has been closely monitoring the numbers in washington. that's where we find the white house correspondent brianna keilar. we hope the leaf blower is done. what do you hear? >> reporter: no leaf blower, no jackhammer. we are getting reaction from the white house, obviously. they saw this positively, don. month surprise. this coming from the chairman of the president's council of economic advisors. it says while more work remains to be done today's employment report provides further evidence the u.s. economy is continuing to heal and continuing to heal from the wounds inflicted by the worst downturn since the great depression. this is obviously similar to what we heard in past months. but the president or -- certainly the white house pointing to this as proof that his economic policies should continue. specifically in this reaction. they point to that bush era tax cut for middle class americans that's set to expire along with tax cuts for all americans. here at
, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one. there are several different cases raising that issue that the justices are probably going to decide whether to hear today. >> california's prop 8, what would that entail? >> propositional is a very different case because that's really a more fundamental case that potentially could apply in every state of the union. basically that question is does the constitution require that everyone, gay or straight, has the right to get married, and what makes the proposition 8 case potentially so earth-shaking in its politics is that it might not apply only in california. it might apply in the 40 plus states that don't have same-sex marriage. it could essentially bring same-sex marriage to the whole country. that's a very different, much broader issue than the defense of marriage act. >> and, jeffrey, explain to us, what is the difference if you are a gay coupl
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6